Barack Obama: The Most Dangerous Man in the World

In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel's nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

This development is highly suspect for two reasons. The first is the timing. Does anyone believe that this is honestly a coincidence, coming directly off of the most recent - and most vicious - series of attacks by the President of the United States against the Israeli Prime Minister?

Yashar and Wanderman, write:

Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel's sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.

There is no doubt that Obama's Jewish sycophants will ignore, or deflect, this particular development just as they ignore, or deflect, all the various ways within which Obama likes to kick Israel in the head.

What is perhaps most worrisome is the apparent disinterest on the part of the Jewish Left, if not the Left, in general, toward the soon to arrive Iranian Jihad Bomb. They may not get it for two or three years, or it could even be as long as ten, but it is coming. And it is coming, at least in part, because Obama is enabling it.

As has often been noted, Obama has a rather strange diplomatic style that was perhaps first noticed when he insisted upon handing a bust of Winston Churchill back to the British. That was a rather rude gesture to one of America's closest allies, but it was mere foreshadowing of what was to come.

Obama has the tendency to spit at friends of the United States while embracing its enemies. His warm embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his cold shoulder toward Israel clearly demonstrate this unusual and counterproductive tendency which remains a mystery for people all around the world.

Our friend Anne, over at Anne's Opinions, has finally concluded that Obama does, in fact, wish to see Israel dismantled as the national home of the Jewish people. She writes:

Along comes this interview (h/t Zvi) in the New English Review with Prof. Richard L. Rubenstein, no intellectual lightweight, who rather shockingly (at least for some people) comes to the conclusion that Obama is a revolutionary, and that his ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Since that is too much of a task to carry out by himself – and there is no way that the American people or Congress would agree to such a thing – he is enabling this at the hands of Iran and its proxies.

Not so long ago I would have recoiled from such a claim in disdain, thinking it to be a delusional conspiracy theory, along with all the other theories that claimed that Obama was a Muslim, not born in the US, a Communist, etc. I used to ascribe to the adage “Do not ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence” and was of the opinion that Obama’s surreal politics stemmed from naivete and inexperience. (Emphases mine.)

Having determined that Obama is neither naive, nor inexperienced at this point, Anne concludes that the answer to Obama's behavior in regards Israel is simply malice. He wants Israel hobbled or gone.

Here was my take in the comments:

Obama went to university, and studied with people like Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, that taught him post-colonial theory, within which Israel is cast as an imperial interloper that has unjustly subjugated the “indigenous” population.

If this is the root of his hostility toward Israel, which I suspect it is, it may very well be that he honestly believes that if only Israel would “end the Occupation” – whatever exactly that means – and that the “Palestinian” people be allowed their freedom to pursue their national destiny, then the conflict would end and Israel could live in peace as the Jewish homeland.

I do not know if this is what he believes, but something along these lines is entirely plausible.

Like millions of other progressives, it’s not that he thinks Israel should be dissolved as the Jewish State, it’s just that he honestly believes that Israel is immoral and needs to reform.

Think Peter Beinart, for example.

Anne pointed out that whatever the source of Obama's disdain for Israel, it is nevertheless exceedingly dangerous and she is absolutely correct.

The problem is not merely that Obama does not like Israel - and he doesn't - it is that by enabling an Iranian bomb he is laying the ground for a nuclear arms race, if not a nuclear holocaust, in that part of the world.

The dispassion with which so many Obama supporters follow this story is disquieting. The impression that one gets in reading the western-left press is that they honestly do not care one whit whether Iran gets the bomb or not.

Many would argue that it is only fair that if the US has the bomb and Israel has the bomb and these other countries have the bomb, why should not Iran get it, as well? Others would suggest, rightfully so, that if we were Iran we would want the bomb as a defensive measure and I have no doubt that when the Iranian government considers its strategic-military place in the world a nuclear shield looks mighty attractive.

While it may very well be in Iran's national interest to gain nuclear weaponry, it is most definitely in the national interest of both the United States and Israel (not to mention Europe and the entire rest of the planet) to prevent Iran from gaining that technology.

19 comments:

Mike, thanks for linking to me and quoting from my post. Between your comment and that of my reader "Aridog", the background you both explain about Obama's early life and education puts his policies into some sort of context.

Sadly, understanding where he's coming from does not explain where he's going to, nor does it explain the apathy, and even the eagerness, with which liberal progressives accept the Middle East arms race.

It really is quite terrifying to think that the man is leading us into what might turn into WWIII.

Those who have been mesmerized by The Obama really don't seem to care about anything he's done indicating an about face on any previously stated policy. There is a certain fealty and hysteria surrounding him I associate with a totalitarian strain. Ditto for the enthusiastic (excuse the expression) whitewashing & hiding of past associations, and the meteoric rise as a national figure. I do, and have, found all these things troubling. Too my fellow Jews: He's not the second coming of FDR, Truman, or JFK. His remarks during his famous visit to Sderot, was meant to reassure Jewish voters, but even then I couldn't help thinking it an insincere attempt at demonstrating empathy, and I really wanted to believe in this guy.

The progressive left accept the Middle East arms race because they do not believe that any of these countries will actually use nuclear weapons.They believe it is unfair and 'imperialistic' for the West to have nuclear weapons and not other parts of the world.They also pride themselves on being ' anti-war'. They believe we live in a different world.That having nuclear weapons as a 'deterrent' is unnecessary. And militaristic.That the rest of the world should be allowed to police itself. That Western ( American) intervention is the cause of unrest around the world, not the answer to it.

At the same time as cheerleading for a nuclear deal with Iran, the left in UK are agitating for dispensing with our own nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are ' bad' on 'moral' grounds. And, the sums of money freed up by not having nuclear weapons would be put to their desired public spending.To make a more equal society.It is important to understand how much of what the progressive left believe in is driven by theories. Not by confronting reality.Anyone who argues differently is accused of 'warmongering'. Or being stuck in the past.

I think it is entirely possible that they believe there is no such thing as WW3.All conflict around the world is seen as a result of previous or ongoing western 'meddling'. Usually understood to be for terrible reasons. Such as opposition to communism. Or, more recently, in the pursuit of oil. Therefore, if the west moves away from its dominance, a more peaceful ( and fairer world will emerge.)

Israel is seen as the cause of conflict.Not just because it is perceived that Israel is an 'immoral' country, but because it is deemed to be illegitimate. Their ultimate goal is for Israel to cease to be a Jewish state. To be a 'Jewish' state in a post- colonial, multicultural world ( western world) is seen to be 'nationalistic' and, in their eyes, 'racist'.American 'power' is equated with ' jewish' power.

Obama is the most dangerous man in the world. And far more powerful now than he has ever been.And much of the world has waited for this situation.

Mike,No, not just the far left. There is a lot of opposition to 'trident' from within the labour party. It is seen as redundant in a post cold war world.There is considerable support for scrapping it in the electorate, too.Trident, is presently situated off the Scottish coast, and the SNP, who are looking on target to sweep up most of the Scottish seats in the election, are wanting to have it shifted from Scotland. Also, they are hoping to be able to pressure a labour party in need of their support to form a government, to scrap trident altogether. It will cost £100 billion to renew it so there is a considerable groundswell of opinion that the money could be better spent. Many people in other British parties believe that we should get rid of trident. ( Not the Conservative party.)Nuclear weapons are seen as immoral and unnecessary.

Europeans can afford ( in every sense) to be very anti nuclearand therefore very 'moral', because they are, effectively, protected by the US - and the US taxpayers.

In the late 1970's Britain seriously considered abandoning nuclear weapons as an economic issue. The country was flat broke. The pressure today also contains a financial component - they simply do not want to pay for it any more. Even during Thatcher, the MoD pressed to get rid of most if not all nuclear weapons as they wanted funding for other items. I can't say it's a terrible idea as the country is inexorably going Muslim. Why give the maniacs a working nuclear delivery system?

One might have thought that his ability to reach the highest peak in America may have convinced him that America is not a retrograde force as the theories say, but a bastion of tolerance and freedom in a world lacking each.

It might be different if the results did not matter so much, and he was more successful. He will be long gone, but it seems will leave a more dangerous world and divided country.

Even if the bad guys treated him unfairly, he reciprocated in kind and abused his power, knowing he could, and he was dishonest to the people and his supporters about many things.

He could have made things better if he was less interested than ramming his theories and ideology down our throats in a manipulative and rather surreptitious way.

It now is a matter of waiting him out, and hoping the damage will not grow.

What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.

Then we see how he has abused his power. He has lied and deceived and manipulated. He uses an approach that is Nixonian toward his enemies, Pavlovian toward his friends, and Orwellian to all.

He is the leader, and no matter how others may act, he should set the tone for all. He does not act like president of all the people, only to his supporters. He is often mocking in his tone and tactics to those who disagree. He injects identity as a tactic. He learned the way to influence low information supporters is by turning the office into a component of popular culture.

His progressive approach places ideology first. The means don't really matter. That's why a Harry Reid can lie about Romney with such impunity, why you can keep your doctor, why a movie caused Benghazi, why we bombed Libya in the first place, to name a few.

What then is the full Obama presidency? It is the quest for extralegal power not just by ignoring the law, tradition, or custom, but by doing so flagrantly and without concern, to the point of rendering critics impotent — and thereby accruing even more power to enrage and embarrass them. In similar circumstances, the Roman biographer Suetonius noted of the Twelve Caesars that the offense itself was not so much the point, but rather the demonstration of committing the offense with impunity and disdain.

Once that pen-and-phone threshold has been crossed, anything is possible — and even the critics of Obama now belatedly accept that. In brilliantly diabolical fashion, the president of the United States has all but ruined the Democratic party in Congress and the state legislatures, but has also confounded his Republican opponents by not caring a whit about his own nihilism — as if he is supposed to worry about ending the congressional careers of his supposed allies?

After all, if someone is going to ignore the law or what tradition demands, then why does he need a legislative majority to do it? Obama is more powerful in defeat than he ever was in victory. Like a seasoned Chicago pol, he reminds his auditors and critics that not only does he not care about the appearance of his actions, but also that no else does either. He all but says, “Each time I issue an illegal executive order, my polls go up, and the more my enemies howl and my friends cringe.” It becomes more hazardous — ask Senator Menendez or an audited Tea Party group — to object to an Obama abuse than for Obama to commit the abuse, which makes further abuse only more certain.

June is more likely. But it matters little because this is the 5th or 6th time such inviolate deadlines have been moved. Obama's in a great position now because ALL the other European partners have left the talks. They can't interfere any more. So Iran and Obama are going to bang out whatever thing they want.

Barack Obama on the so-called "Arab Spring" (May 19, 2011):

"There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat."

The "Arab Spring" was the brutal rise of political Islam in the Middle East and this is what Obama compares the Civil Rights Movement to?

The Fundamental Argument:

The progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, creates and supports venues that demonize and defame the Jewish state, thereby also creating hatred toward the Jewish people.

Such venues include political journals, such as, but not limited to, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian, numerous universities throughout the United States and Europe, various NGOs with an anti-Israel agenda, and the entire progressive-left movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) the Jewish people of the state of Israel.

These venues and organizations do not generally criticize Israel, but dehumanize that country.

For this reason, among others, the progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, undermines the well-being and safety of Jews around the world, sometimes resulting in violence toward us.

Therefore, as a matter of common sense and basic human decency, Jews should leave the progressive movement and the Democratic Party as we seek to build alternative political structures that are not home to toxic anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, who would see us robbed of self-determination and self-defense.

What You Can't Discuss:

This is a partial list of taboo topics within progressive-left venues around the Arab-Israel conflict. You cannot discuss this material because it undermines the "Palestinian narrative" of perpetual victimhood. This narrative is a club used by the Arab and Muslim enemies of Israel, along with their western progressive allies, to delegitimize that country in preparation for its eventual dissolution.

1) The centuries of Jewish dhimmitude under the boot of Islamic imperialism.

2) The recent construction of Palestinian identity, its connection to Soviet Cold War politics, and how this is an Arab people with a Roman name that refers to Greeks.

3) Arab and Palestinian Koranically-based racism as the fundamental source of the conflict.

4) The ways in which contemporary progressive anti-Zionism serves as a cloak for gross anti-Semitism.

5) The Palestinian theft and appropriation of Jewish history.

6) "Pallywood."

7) The historical connections between the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Palestinian national movement.

8) The perpetual refusal of the Palestinian-Arabs to accept a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one.

9) The progressive portrayal of terrorists as those fighting a righteous war of "resistance."

10) The Arab-Palestinian indoctrination of children with Jew hatred.

11) Human rights violations against women, children, and Gay people in the Muslim Middle East.

12) The fact that violent Jihadis call themselves "Jihadis" and claim to love death above life.

This is only a partial list, so please let us know the many more that we are missing.

Quote of the Whenever:

It is not that most progressives are anti-Semitic. They aren't. It's that they don't get it, they don't care, and they very much want you to shut the fuck up. - Michael Lumish